So, reading Om today I found out that Facebook launched blogs for all their users. Except they didn’t call them blogs. Facebook is already pretty geeky; it’s a layer of abstraction on top of social interaction. So what does it say about the stigma around the word “blog” when Facebook is trying so hard to disassociate themselves with it. And note, they are trying very hard to have nothing to do with the term “blog.” It would be incredibly easy to launch the blog service and call it a blog. Not only is the word “blog” an accurate description of the functionality of their new service, but on top of that, people will instantly understand what the service is and how to use it. As soon as Facebook decided to call their blog service “Notes,” all kinds of questions pop into potential users heads. “what are notes?”, “how are they different from blogs?”, ” how do I use these notes?”, “why would I want them?” It’s so much easier to just call them “blogs” and avoid the needless questions because everyone know what blogs do and why people use them.
Anyway, this post is part-commentary and part-test because I added my RSS feed to the Notes import widget, and I want to see if the import is just a one-time thing or if now all my blog posts going forward will be imported into my Facebook page. The Facebook says it will do the latter, but a simple test never hurts. Plus, I’ll see how real-time the update is.
Oh, and the following TOS content disturbed me: From the Facebook Notes sign-up page, “By entering a URL, you represent that you have the right to permit us to reproduce this content on the Facebook site and that the content is not obscene or illegal.”
I think this message means that I own my own content… but am I giving up any aspect of that ownership? Do I have any less rights to the content from my blog by using this service? I can’t tell… Any copyright/IP lawyers out there want to clue me in?
Overall, I dig the idea, and I like that the facebook will likely have much more fresh content going forward (plus it’s an obvious battle that must be fought in the war against MySpace), but I wish blogging were cool enough to be recognized by the Facebook instead of hidden behind the vague term “Notes.”
I dunno — I just came back from a trip to the Midwest, and I have to say that I’m not sure it’s safe to say that “everyone” knows all about what blogs are. That said, I suspect Facebook’s demographic certainly has a clue, on average. But, “blog” is also at risk of being a term of this time, not a long-term word (though, I think this much less than I did 18 months ago), so perhaps they are just saying that they are not doing what’s trendy but instead adding features users want (novel idea). IANAL, but there’s nothing in the clause you quoted in their TOS that indicates giving up rights — only that you give them permission to reproduce it.
I read a couple of your blog entries. I chortled and snorted, at least a handful of times.
Please advise if this blog serves a higher marketing purpose for you future, so I can be sure not to bombard it with comments such as: < *explicit content edit... thanks Ian*>
See, when I read this I wondered if they weren’t completely crazy.
The social stigma around blog (and maybe even more importantly blogger) is such that it could tarnish Facebook’s perception of cool/hip/whatever.
They may have been more concerned about the reaction of their user-base if they were labelled bloggers for their writings on Facebook - from the sites FAQ: ” “Why aren’t notes called blogs?” Answer: “Because then you’d be a blogger. ” “